gendun wrote:I see nothing in the OP to suggest that the poster was asking about the Bhikkhu Vinaya.In my case I noted that you were suggesting that the wearing of malas for any reason was a breach of precept.That puzzled me and still does.For the reason I outlined. That I have seen a photograph of a highly respected Bhikku wearing a mala.And a lay person of many years experience who daily takes the 8 precepts and leads others in so doing wearing the same mala.

as I have said before I am not dealing with interpretations of the rules, only explaining what is and is not in the rule itself. I went as far into explaining interpretation as I wished to go and that was that. As a result there is not much I am actually saying other than something is or is not present.

another result is I have not actually dealt with the vinaya as a picture of a mendicant and their disciple (who I thought was a mendicant) would be under the rule I quoted in Cv.V.2.1 not the rule lay people live under one day a week. but there are several things not present which you have supposed would be. You have kept bringing up a Bhikkhu so the seventh precept is not something they follow directly, yet their is a corresponding rule they do follow. which was only quoted when a passage and assertion were given relevant to mendicants. not that I was dealing with that rule in corresponding to you.

gendun wrote:I am baffled by your negative tone.....

Incidentally the "fallacy of appealing to authority" is one of a series of possible failures of logic in defending a position. I was merely asking for clarification about a matter about which I have little knowledge . And I asked a simple question in good faith.I find your dismissive and defensive response both disappointing and frankly very odd.

I do not usually fluff up what I say and I am not going to do so because someone prefers it to be that way. now if I was mistaken with the appeal to authority claim, great news, and I am sorry for the misunderstanding. but I communicate the way I communicate not the way you do, and to suppose I am being negative or anything else is not demonstrative of it being the case.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Probably best if we forget that I asked.As I said doing a Vipassana retreat piqued my interest in the Theravada.But I seem to have unwittingly provoked a response that I certainly did not intend.Sorry to have bothered you.

Cittasanto wrote:Where do you get intention being a factor which makes it a moot issue?

The purpose for not wearing these things is for not decorating oneself for beautification sake. However, if one puts a beed counting string on his wrist so he can travel with it (not adorn it), I don't see it as breaking the precept the way, I believe, the Buddha meant it.

the wearing itself is the fault, and intention does not negate the matter.

This your point of view. Your entitled to it. However, I think it's wrong.

may all be well

"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"

Cittasanto wrote:Where do you get intention being a factor which makes it a moot issue?

The purpose for not wearing these things is for not decorating oneself for beautification sake. However, if one puts a beed counting string on his wrist so he can travel with it (not adorn it), I don't see it as breaking the precept the way, I believe, the Buddha meant it.

the wearing itself is the fault, and intention does not negate the matter.

This your point of view. Your entitled to it. However, I think it's wrong.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Cittasanto wrote:Where do you get intention being a factor which makes it a moot issue?

The purpose for not wearing these things is for not decorating oneself for beautification sake. However, if one puts a beed counting string on his wrist so he can travel with it (not adorn it), I don't see it as breaking the precept the way, I believe, the Buddha meant it.

the wearing itself is the fault, and intention does not negate the matter.

This your point of view. Your entitled to it. However, I think it's wrong.

may all be well

Sorry I haven't shared my personal point of view.

You interpretation of what you read is your point of view.....

the wearing itself is the fault, and intention does not negate the matter.

thats your take on what the precept means... aka "your point of view"

"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"

Cv.V.2.1 - my rendering wrote:For one who wears an ear ornaments, chains, necklaces, ornaments for the waist, ornamental girdles, armlets, bracelets, & finger rings should not be worn, An offence of wrongdoing

this all has to do with adorning oneself/the body.... japa malas do not need to be worn for adornment or decoration.. If there is no adornment, then there is no breaking of the precept... There needs to be some intellectual comprehension...

may all be well

"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"

I have specifically asked about what the precept is saying. Cittasanto made a good point, one needs to be careful not to bend the Dhamma to fit one's own preferences (or subtle desires), which I'm careful not to do in the case of the precepts. I'm also aware that it's important to keep the intention/spirit of a rule in mind for a better understanding and to see "what matters".

I have specifically asked about what the precept is saying. Cittasanto made a good point, one needs to be careful not to bend the Dhamma to fit one's own preferences (or subtle desires), which I'm careful not to do in the case of the precepts. I'm also aware that it's important to keep the intention/spirit of a rule in mind for a better understanding and to see "what matters".

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill